1. The judgment of the first instance court, including the Plaintiff’s claim extended or modified by this court, is modified as follows.

1. The grounds for this part of the basic facts are the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The plaintiff's assertion revoked the sales contract of this case and confiscated the down payment KRW 2.63 billion, without complying with the plaintiff's demand for postponement of the payment date of remainder pursuant to the provisions of Articles 6 and 8 of the sales contract of this case providing cooperation with the new person, without complying with the plaintiff's demand for postponement of payment date, and without giving notice for performance of the plaintiff's obligation to pay the remainder or performance of his obligation to transfer ownership in the concurrent performance relation with the former.

The termination of the contract by the defendant is not only illegal because the requirements of the cancellation are not satisfied, and the defendant is well aware that the payment of the plaintiff's balance can be made easily if the defendant complies with the request for the extension of the payment deadline, and thus the termination of the contract by the defendant is null and void

Since the termination of the contract by the defendant who fails to fulfill the above duty of cooperation falls under the case where the defendant clearly expresses his intention to refuse performance under the contract and finally expresses his intention to refuse performance, the plaintiff cancelled the contract of this case based on such breach of contract by the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay the down payment of KRW 2.63 billion paid by the plaintiff due to the restoration of the plaintiff's contract termination due to the cancellation of the contract and the interest or delay damages thereon.

(P) The Defendant’s rescission of the contract is lawful, even if the contract is lawful, the full confiscation of the down payment of KRW 2.630 million based on the instant penalty agreement is unfair, and thus, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 1.3 billion reduced by 50% and the interest or delay damages therefrom.

(Preliminary Claim) 3. Determination

A. The sales contract of this case is first stipulated in Articles 6 and 8 of the sales contract for the primary claim.